Silver Nuggets: Cowen/Michalek to Play Tomorrow

by DarrenM on Sep 17, 2009 1:59 PM EDT

Just a few quick highlights from around the web today:

Update: Alex Kovalev will not play tomorrow night in Montreal. Fans there are going to be pretty upset about not seeing "L'Artiste." Jared Cowen and Milan Michalek will be making their debut, however, which is quite exciting - I didn't think Cowen would play this preseason. (PDF of Official Line-up)
Update: Six players were assigned to Binghamton: Bannister, Condra, O'Brien, Hamel, Holt, and Kudelka. No real surprises in that bunch. (Sens Twitter)
Update: Chris Neil's fight with Nick Tarnasky of the Panthers resulted in a broken orbital bone for Tarnasky, who could miss the start of the season. (TSN Ice Chips)
Milan Michalek will be on The TEAM Radio with Lloyd and York at 3:25pm today. (Sens Twitter)
Speaking of Michalek, he lined up with Jason Spezza and Daniel Alfredsson during practice today, a line that will almost certainly be tested during the preseason (TSN Ice Chips)
SensTV has a whole bunch of post-game interviews from last night up. My favourite is newcomer Jonathan Cheechoo's, if only because the guy seems to never stop smiling. His cheeks must hurt after these interviews. (SensTV)
Sports Illustrated's Jim Kelley thinks that the Dany Heatley situation will have profound effects on the handling of No-Trade/No-Move Clauses in the future. (Sports Illustrated)
I forgot to mention it last night, but Mike Fisher was alternate captain last night (along with the usual Chris Phillips). No word yet on who will be sporting Heatley's old 'A' when the official season starts, but the usual suspects are Fisher and Spezza.

Tweet Comment 1 comment | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

That SI column is bullshit

What if Bryan Murray said no to a no-movement clause? One of two things: Heatley would have walked as a free agent, Heatley would have been dealt to prevent him from walking as a free agent, or Heatley would have demanded more money to compensate for the insecurity. Kelley seems pretty far removed from reality in his analysis.

I would, however, like to draw attention to a story I wrote at the outset of this whole gongshow: Heatley gets his cake and gets to eat it, too. From that story:

Really, though, isn’t there something paradoxical about a player with a no-trade clause who goes on to demand a trade? And isn’t there a very good reason why this paradox should waive any movement-related obligations the team in question, in this instance the Senators, has to the player? When a player with a limited movement clause in his contract requests or demands that he be moved, does he not then forego his previously-agreed privelege?

I should get a job in Bryan Murray’s legal department.

www.silversevensens.com

by Peter Raaymakers on Sep 17, 2009 4:37 PM EDT reply actions